I believe you are saying that science tends to be atheistic because it confines itself to the materialistic explanation for everything. There is materialism in the universe, but that is not the whole story.

Science is representative of mankind's attempt to study the realities of his physical environment from the microcosm to the wide universe or macrocosm. Science uses reason as a tool for recognizing the conclusions of consciousness with regard to the experience in and with the physical world of energy and matter, time and space. The relevant facts of science are clarified and correlated, becoming meaning in the thought streams of mind. Science is dedicated to the investigation of physical things and energies. Religion, on the other hand, deals with the realities of a spiritual nature. Science encounters great difficulties when it presumes to make pronouncements on things that are not associated with the physical creation. The analytical tools of science cannot penetrate the worlds of either mind (the proper domain of philosophy) or spirit (the proper domain of religion). However, this inability of science to effectively delve into the worlds of mind and spirit does not in any way negate the unique value it brings to providing insights into the workings of the physical creation.

The whole circle of science rests inside the circle of philosophy which rests inside the circle of religion.

The whole circle of science rests inside the circle of philosophy which rests inside the circle of religion — vmarzell

You've got the first part right, but the second part backward. Science is applied philosophy, but philosophy is broader than religion. I would argue that religion properly construed is actually the opposite of philosophy properly construed (what I'd call phobosophy), but given the prevalence of religious philosophers, I'm forced to accede to a broader sense of "philosophy" that can accommodate them.

To the OP though, no, science is not inherently atheistic. It is inherently naturalistic, but there could in principle be a natural god that is amenable to scientific inquiry. Turns out there’s not, but in principle there could be.

To the OP though, no, science is not inherently atheistic. It is inherently naturalistic, but there could in principle be a natural god that is amenable to scientific inquiry. Turns out there’s not, but in principle there could be. — Pfhorrest

I agree. Science is equivalent to the topics discussed in Aristotle's Physics, which was limited to various elements of the natural world. But then, he added a second volume to discuss, from a holistic perspective, how humans understand the world, and the human condition.

The latter tome came to be called Meta-Physics, and became associated with Religion and Mysticism. But Aristotle's primary concern was with what we now call Psychology and Sociology and Humanities. Eventually, modern empirical Science divorced itself from theoretical Metaphysics, and left those other-worldly topics to effete impractical Philosophers and Theologians. So, philosophers are freed-up to discuss ideas (such as God) that are important to human beings, but not amenable to empirical evidence. Philosophy is not necessarily Theistic, but it fills the gap left behind when Science converted to faith in Materialism.

Well said. And I agree with what other's have suggested.

To the OP's point, that's sort of an old paradigm (can science and religion co-exist?) where one seemingly has to dichotomize both domain's. Objectively, one can help the other.

Particularly in the context of creativity, in discovering truly novel ideas, revelatory knowledge can in fact uncover many things. There are many scientists who are in-the-closet theists and agnostics. In cognitive science Maslow, Jung & William James come to mind. In theoretical physics, Paul Davies is another. (Even 'old school' Einstein was more of an agnostic, not an atheist.) I'm sure there are many more in postmodernism and beyond-those are just a very few.

Not trying to make any kind of statement here, just bringing some levity to the subject. It’s interesting that proposing that God exists is offensive to a scientist (although I don’t know why he wouldn’t be the ultimate Scientist and Mathematician), but proposing dark energy or dark matter, something we have never seen, and don’t know what it is, doesn’t seem to be the least bit of a problem. Even worse, theoretical physicists are discussing multiple universes (multiverse) scenarios without compunction, even though, by sheer definition, they are talking Meta-Physics and something that can never be proven.

Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. — VoidDetector

I think of science and religion as two separate spheres of human activity with little or no overlap.

Where they confront each other antagonistically is when the religious claim their theogony and creation myths accurately represents the state of the cosmos (i.e., a god created it), and when science claims there are no such things as gods. Or at least there is no evidence for them.

Scientists can be religious, and the religious can be scientific. For instance, I know fundamentalist Christians who believe in a god-directed world but who, never the less, accept the science of medicine and do not count on faith to cure disease. How do they manage this contradiction? Compartmentalization. Religion and science are separate categories which do not inform each other.

although I don’t know why he wouldn’t be the ultimate Scientist and Mathematician — vmarzell

That is a way for the religious scientist to bridge compartments.

It isn't at all unusual for even smart people to hold contradictory views. There are people who fully understand the facts of global warming, but who, none the less, buy SUVs to tool around town.

I agree except for the many paradoxical phenomena viz consciousness. Most all physical theories about a some thing starts with a sense of wonderment (synthetic a priori propositions). The rub or irony is that wonderment is a metaphysical construct. And at the risk of redundancy, it's like the theory behind the existential nature of human Love (not to mention math & music). We seek that which we don't even understand.

Otherwise, one could argue we are back to the question of why human scientists posit : all events must have a cause.

Dark matter and dark energy are posited because we see weird things happening in the universe and posit those names for the as-yet-unknown whatever it is that's causing them. There aren't any things happening in the universe that we need to posit the existence of God for. "God" is an answer looking for a question; "dark matter" and "dark energy" are placeholder answers to genuine questions.

Also, and this is kind of a pet peeve of mine, but the multiverse stuff talked about by physicists isn't really the same kind that's talked about by philosophers. Physicists are talking about multiple "universes" in a sense that there could be evidence in our "universe" for these other ones, which in a philosophical sense would put our "universe" and the other "universes" in the metaphysically same universe. It's a bit like how "galaxy" and "universe" used to by synonymous, until it was discovered that there were other galaxies. Now it's being hinted at that there might be other things-that-we-have-thus-far-been-calling-the-universe, and we just don't have terminology to differentiate that type of thing from, you know, the universe proper.

This contrasts non-atheistic scientists on this matter, who disregard or "turn off" scientific endeavour while analyzing religion. — VoidDetector

I think this whole schema is way too neat, in a number of ways. I don't think people turn off, at least necessarily. What's the experimental protocol for seeing if there is a God? Atheists, scientists, well, everyone, we all have portions of our life where we can test or rely on experts to have tested...and then there are a lot of things we cannot. And we make decisions through a variety of epistemologies...all of us.

I like Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on science, here standing for the "more" educated segment of the population, and religion.

I'm going to invent the statistics here but they're important only in a relative sense so it doesn't matter. 50% of the general population are theists; 25% of scientists are theists; 12% of Nobel Laureates are theists. The numbers fall as the level of education increases but, a big but, the numbers don't fall off to zero. So, Tyson claims, we shouldn't be impressed in any way about the decline in religious belief as much as we should be by the fact that a percentage, albeit a small number, of even Nobel Laureates believe in a god.

The non-overlapping magisteria concept is appealing and if it had worked science and religion would've been happy companions. Unfortunately, science, especially geology, paleontology, astronomy, biology contradict scriptural claims and that's where the problems begin. Incompatible claims indicate one side is wrong and religion is losing the battle on that front.

If anything...

...science is inherently AGNOSTIC.

That is the object of science...attempting to figure out what is going on here.

I suppose I agree, but I put it differently and say that science is a methodology, not a set of positions on various issues. Perhaps scientists will find some way to rule out a deity or demonstrate there is or was one. Those would be content conclusions. Right now concensus should be agnositic - we don't have a way to test or demonstrate.

Agreed!

:up:

There aren't any things happening in the universe that we need to posit the existence of God for. "God" is an answer looking for a question; "dark matter" and "dark energy" are placeholder answers to genuine questions. — Pfhorrest

What a touching expression of faith! And so sincere, also, which makes it extra special.

Physicists are talking about multiple "universes" in a sense that there could be evidence in our "universe" for these other ones, which in a philosophical sense would put our "universe" and the other "universes" in the metaphysically same universe — Pfhorrest

But the thing is, there can't be evidence for 'other universes' because by definition they extend beyond the scope of naturalism, which comprises the universe. There's a debate raging as to whether the conjecture about multiverses is scientific at all, or whether it's just a mathematically ingenious fantasy. What you have here is mathematical conjecture born of the inability to reconcile fundamental conundrums in physical and cosmological theory. And what makes it especially irksome, from the perspective of 'natural theology', is that one of the things that is most often used to justify the 'multiverse', is to explain away the so-called 'fine-tuning problem':

Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere. This reasoning has been applied, in particular, to explaining the density of the dark energy that is speeding up the expansion of the universe today.

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.]

A tidy explanation! Do you get the irony of the idea that 'the landscape' of 10 ⁵⁰⁰
'universes' could be a 'tidy explanation' for anything? ;-)

Modern Science is a religion, its God is Universal Laws, which dictate everything that happens, that has ever happened and that will ever happen. A religion that reduces a being to its material body, that negates a great part of our experiences, that isn’t self-conscious enough to realize it is based on beliefs.

The scientist says: but these Laws are tested! They are true! No. There is evidence that some things follow regularities in some specific situations, there is no evidence that everything follows these laws, no evidence that what we do is dictated by these laws, no evidence that these laws appeared out of nothing, no evidence that these laws applied in the distant past or will apply in the future, all of these are beliefs.

There is also plenty of evidence of things transcending these laws (qualia, imagination, dreams, spiritual experiences, miracles, out-of-body experiences, ...) which the religion of Science conveniently ignores, or pretends that it will explain in the future, which is a pure act of faith.

Modern Science may be the only religion that doesn’t realize it is one.

Dark matter and dark energy are posited because we see weird things happening in the universe and posit those names for the as-yet-unknown whatever it is that's causing them. — Pfhorrest

People do the same when they posit unseen entities because they have experienced things they cannot explain otherwise. Science selectivity picks (based on faith) whether some observation is evidence for invisible things, or whether to dismiss it as a mere hallucination, or to simply ignore it.

Also you don’t seem to understand how the hypothesis of dark matter and dark energy came about. There was first of all the religious faith that General Relativity is true, that it applies everywhere in the Universe at all scales. Scientists like to say again and again and again that when an observation contradicts a theory, the theory is falsified, and supposedly that makes Science different from a religion. But here we have a theory that has been contradicted by many observations, but it hasn’t been falsified, because it can always be saved by invoking invisible things. By invoking dark matter and dark energy, they can explain away pretty much any observation. How faithful they are in the sacred text of General Relativity!

And what almost no one realizes, is that we could have done exactly the same to save Newton’s Gravitation from falsification, by invoking invisible things to explain the discrepancy between the theory and observations. The religion of Modern Science arbitrarily decides which Laws are sacred, and actively prevents people from questioning them. These days people don’t get burned at the stake for heresy, they get publicly ridiculed, they don’t get funding for their research, and they are prevented from publishing in the sacred Scientific journals.

I could go on and on and on, hopefully the point is clear. But I know I will most likely get attacked for my heretical claims against the religion of Modern Science.

Look, the guy that devised Big Bang theory was Georges LeMaitre, who was a Jesuit as well as a scientist. But - here’s the thing - the Pope started to invoke Big Bang theory as confirmation of ‘creation ex nihilo’ in the 1950’s. And LeMaitre was embarrassed! Faithful a Catholic as he was, he felt it quite improper to appeal to his scientific work in support of the faith. He thought each should stand on its own merits. He had a word to the Pope’s then science advisor, who counselled the Pope not to keep making these claims, which the Pope heeded. (ALthough it is worth noting that there was, and still is, some resistance to BB theory because it sounds so very much like creation from nothing. I mean, a single point...come on......)

Vera Rubin, whose cosmological measurements lead to dark matter theory, was a religious Jew. She likewise didn’t see any conflict between her religious beliefs, which she said ‘makes sense’ of the Universe, and her scientific work.

The whole ‘religion v science’ thing is based on a very limited view in my opinion. The real conflict is between those who say that science proves anything about what is beyond science - one way or the other, for or against.

The only ‘proof of God’ that really counts, is how you treat others, how you comport yourself in life. The rest is hot air.

Yes, it is atheistic, but by no means does that mean it's against an idea of a creator, nor other simulations.

God is a characterized creator; it's also based on a story book.

I can ponder the idea of a creator, but whether that is a 'God', is a different matter.

Modern Science is an atheistic endeavour. — VoidDetector

So, now we have the liberal-arts crowd criticizing religious studies by trying to re-purpose the credibility of the STEM fields to that effect -- someone else's credibility and not their own which they do not have -- while perfectly knowing that graduates from a STEM field generally despise the liberal arts for being ineffective nonsense.

As you know, a STEM person, such as myself, takes pride in spitting on the liberal arts, which he considers to be an inferior activity, and a dangerous route to unemployment or underemployment.

Is this the case for religious studies?

Well, no.

Good examples are the food processing industry and the financial sector that increasingly want halal certification for their products and services, because otherwise, a quarter of the world population will shun them. You can easily get a job working in the field of Islamic studies.

Islamic studies is absolutely not about preparing its graduates for unemployment or slinging coffees at Starbucks.

In the end, nobody cares whether the slaughterhouse management believes in God or not. If the lamb is not slaughtered according to halal procedure, their bottom line may very well start showing red numbers.

Hence, where do the born losers from the liberal arts, who are treated by everybody else with contempt only, find the temerity to criticize other fields, such as religious studies, that unlike them, allow for successful professional careers for their graduates? Go figure!

Hence, where do the born losers from the liberal arts, who are treated by everybody else with contempt only, find the temerity to criticize other fields, such as religious studies, that unlike them, allow for successful professional careers for their graduates? — alcontali

Religious studies are a part of many liberal arts colleges and universities and can be majored in, often, and masters and doctorate programs are also available at liberal arts institutions.. I don't notice people with liberal arts degrees, including religious studies, being treated by everyone else with contempt only. I do understand that some think one must specialize early, though the data is mixed on that at best, but I can't see why wanting to study a broad range of fields while transitioning to adult life should lead to contempt from 'everyone'. More importantly, it's simply not the case that everyone feels that.

Just for fun we can throw in

https://zaytuna.edu/

In fact it seems to me that Muslim culture, certainly in many periods in history had the advantage of being more liberal artsy than, for example, European institiutions.

Religious studies are a part of many liberal arts colleges and universities and can be majored in, often, and masters and doctorate programs are also available at liberal arts institutions. — Coben

I am not sure about how it works for other religions, but in countries with serious infrastructure for that purpose, Islamic studies are never amalgamated with things like "gender studies" or other typical liberal arts activities. You simply cannot put these students together in one building. It is better that they do not talk. If you do not like someone else's subject, then stick to your own.

So, it is a separate world, and that is how it should be.

In my opinion, the liberal-arts crowd had better shut their mouths about STEM as well as about religious studies, because they know nothing about these subjects. They are totally ignorant about what these things are, and they just spout their stupid remarks on things that they would not understand, not even to save themselves from drowning. It is not even their business!

Religious studies has its own audience, its own field of application, and its own professional pipeline for graduates. Seriously, we do not need these ignorant outsiders.

Quite a few corporations understand and respect that. For example, all McDonald's restaurants in Malaysia are certified halal. This company tends to be very respectful of religious prohibitions. They even have an internal department to supervise that.

(Their overly processed food is not necessarily considered particularly healthy, but that is another matter, and the subject field of other disciplines).

I am not sure about how it works for other religions, but in countries with serious infrastructure for that purpose, Islamic studies are never amalgamated with things like "gender studies" or other typical liberal arts activities. — alcontali

Gender studies is fairly recent, but sure, it's now a part of many liberal arts programs. Of course it is generally optional.

If you do not like someone else's subject, then stick to your own. — alcontali

I think anyone who wants to follow that rule, should. I found certain majors vastly less interesting to talk to than others, though I don't have a rule.

In my opinion, the liberal-arts crowd had better shut their mouths about STEM — alcontali

STEM as in science tech, etc.? But those can also be studied at liberal arts institutions and certainly can be studied on the side of other courses or before and after humanities educations. I think that might be what you mean when you say liberal arts: humanities. Like the literature majors should never talk about science or something like that. But certainly philosophers can and should talk about science for example. And shutting their mouths about religious studies would be counterproductive if those were their studies, and further why should, for example, religious students in liberal arts educational institutions not talk about religion? And then I think discussion is valuable between students in the various disciplines in the humanites, including religion students. Here you are talking to people who are presumably of a variety of backgrounds. Should some of these people not interact with you?

They are totally ignorant about what these things are, and they just spout their stupid remarks on things that they would not understand, not even to save themselves from drowning. It is not even their business! — alcontali

There are plenty of experts in religions who have liberal arts educations, many of these religious people themselves. The personal lives of specific religious followers may not be their business but of course any important phenomenon in the world is a valid subject: read: their business. Those who aren't religious might even become religious via such dialogue and interest.

Quite a few corporations understand and respect that. For example, all McDonald's restaurants in Malaysia are certified halal. This company tends to be very respectful of religious prohibitions. They even have an internal department to supervise that. — alcontali

That has nothing to do with people with liberal arts backgrounds not having anything to do with religious people or religious topics. That simple respect for customers. In fact it's an idea that fits well with liberal arts values.

In any case this 'everyone' feeling contempt for people in the liberal arts is hallucinated. And here we are in a forum dedicated to one of the humanities, philosophy, one of the liberal arts.

But certainly philosophers can and should talk about science for example. — Coben

Yes, Karl Popper famously did this in "Science as falsification".

He is really the exception, however. Most non-scientists spout total nonsense about science, if only, because not being scientists themselves, they fundamentally do not know what they are talking about.

For example, claiming that "science is atheist".

What scientific journal would ever publish a thing like that, and with what scientific justification? What exactly could anybody ever experimentally test to support that view? Anybody who has ever done the effort of just reading a scientific publication knows that that kind of tripe would never be published under the nomer of science. Someone who writes that kind of things, simply does not work in science. Has such person ever seen the inside of a laboratory? What has he ever tested by himself? It is so obvious that it reflects total ignorance of what scientists do.

In epistemology, people study the abstract, Platonic world of a particular kind of knowledge, and then look for patterns that occur in that world. The vast majority of philosophers do not study the abstract, Platonic world of science to detect patterns in it. On the contrary, they just fart imaginary nonsense out of their butt that is totally unrelated to the database of existing scientific knowledge.

Then, these people do the same with mathematics, completely misunderstanding what it is about, because they would never try to read in the database of existing mathematical knowledge. They do not read it, but they know everything about it. If intelligence is "knowing when you do not know", how can someone think of himself to be intelligent when he talks about a database of knowledge that he cannot and does not want to read in, but about which he claims to "know" things. For heaven's sake, what can he possibly know?

And shutting their mouths about religious studies would be counterproductive if those were their studies, and further why should, for example, religious students in liberal arts educational institutions not talk about religion? — Coben

For the same reason. For example, they have never read in the vast database of Islamic jurisprudence, but they still know everything about religion. How can someone who has never read a ruling ("akham") in al-fiqh, know anything about the practice of Islam? Again, they know absolutely nothing, but they believe that they know everything.

They do not even have any awareness of the existence of these knowledge databases. They would not be able to find them online, not even to save themselves from drowning. So, for heaven's sake, what do these people believe that they know?

And then I think discussion is valuable between students in the various disciplines in the humanites, including religion students. Here you are talking to people who are presumably of a variety of backgrounds. Should some of these people not interact with you? — Coben

I am not a scholar ("alim") and not even a real student in Islamic studies, but I have a good awareness of what their databases of knowledge look like, because I occasionally end up reading in them. So, I have read things in "tafsir" (exegesis) and "fiqh" (jurisprudence). That is how I end up occasionally reading Quranic verses or testimonies from the Sunnah; simply, because they are used as justification in a particular ruling, in which I happen to be interested. In fact, that is in my opinion an easier way to familiarize oneself with the scriptures themselves: just read how they are typically being used as justification in rulings.

When I talk with students or scholars in religious studies, at least, I know vaguely what they typically do. So, I can relate. Would I recommend them to talk with the liberal-arts crowd? No, because that crowd has no clue as to what they talking about, but they still know everything better. It is incredible how ignorant and arrogant they are. So, no, I do not recommend to talk with them, as they are extremely irritating.

And here we are in a forum dedicated to one of the humanities, philosophy, one of the liberal arts. — Coben

As far as I am concerned, philosophy still has its own legitimate sub-disciplines, more specifically, ontology and epistemology.

Still, I usually end up discussing logic, even though it is no longer part of philosophy and has entirely migrated to mathematics, because the question may indeed be asked in a philosophical context, but I usually have to point out that the legitimate answer always comes from mathematics.

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.]

A tidy explanation! Do you get the irony of the idea that 'the landscape' of 10 500
'universes' could be a 'tidy explanation' for anything? ;-) — Wayfarer

It would be a "tidy explanation" for the comment, "I do not know" which so many people seem to dread like small pox.

We humans do tend to human-chauvinists.

We probably are about as knowledgeable about ALL of what actually exists...as cockroaches are.

If we could just grok that, the world would probably be a better place.

For example, claiming that "science is atheist". — alcontali

Which I disagreed with. Me, not being a scientist. Yes, there are many people who babble about science incorrectly. In fact I would be that some scientists would even spout similar nonsense. Do you really think assuming the writer of the OP is a philosopher makes much sense?

I wouldn't call myself a philosopher, though I have read widely and done my best to be rigorous also. Someone saying that in many a philosophy class at a liberal arts college or university would meet serious critique. And certainly anyone who studies epistemology or the history of science, both potential parts of humanities programs and pretty much necessitated by a philosophy major would have serious issues with the OP.

Just as they would with your broad stroke dismissals of liberal arts people, assumptions about everybody, not realizing that one can study religion in liberal arts programs and so on.

I mean, if we were to go by religious people who participate in many religious forums we could, using this kind of 'logic' dismiss religious education, which some people do.

In epistemology, people study the abstract, Platonic world of a particular kind of knowledge, and then look for patterns that occur in that world.The vast majority of philosophers do not study the abstract, Platonic world of science to detect patterns in it. On the contrary, they just fart imaginary nonsense out of their butt that is totally unrelated to the database of existing scientific knowledge. — alcontali

Philosophers? I truly doubt that. People who participate in philosophy forums, certain some of them.

For the same reason. For example, they have never read in the vast database of Islamic jurisprudence, but they still know everything about religion. How can someone who has never read a ruling ("akham") in al-fiqh, know anything about the practice of Islam? Again, they know absolutely nothing, but they believe that they know everything. — alcontali

I am sure this happens. However anyone trying that crap in an essay in a liberal arts philosophy course or religoius studies course or even in a literature course looking at some specific example of islamic literature stands the main chance of getting a low grade or being sent off for a rewrite. It would perhaps depend on what they said about Islam, but someone making claims about Islamic jurisprudence had damn well come up with some references and clearly traceable support.

They do not even have any awareness of the existence of these knowledge databases. They would not be able to find them online, not even to save themselves from drowning. So, for heaven's sake, what do these people believe that they know? — alcontali

'these people' surely exist, but they are not the whole of people who have come from liberal arts education, not remotely. And what you are complaining about is common in every category. Do you really think most religious people understand science or humanities if they have not studies these things? Don't many of them comment on things they do not know, because certain critiques make the rounds in their circles.

Would I recommend them to talk with the liberal-arts crowd? — alcontali

What I see in our small exchange her is not the slightest interest in conceding even points where you are obviously confused. For example, what a liberal arts education is and is not. Your posts wouldn't pass muster in a liberal arts facilty, not because of your conclusions but because you are generalizing wildly, have misconceptions about what you are talking about, cannot interact with critique but simply repeat your position with information that does not adress the critique. IOW it suffers some of the same problems you are saying the liberal arts crowd as a whole has. You wrote about stuff you don't know. And you painted a huge group with a single brush stroke, even though you know little about them, it seems.

I'll ignore you in this topic from here on out.

And if it does anything to make consider for a second that you might be confused in your generalizations I have a liberal arts background and I am a theist often critical of positions that seem to bother you.

Do you really think most religious people understand science or humanities if they have not studies these things? Don't many of them comment on things they do not know, because certain critiques make the rounds in their circles. — Coben

I have never encountered a religious scholar who would even talk about a liberal-art subject that he is not familiar with. It does not even work in that way.

In fact, I know this from experience, because I tried to get rulings ("haram or halal?") from religious scholars about cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. They would not give me one. I know why. They needed more information about the subject. So, until now, they have mostly refrained from producing an actual ruling.

Now, that particular ruling in Islamic jurisprudence is for various reasons important to me.

If a negative ruling is provable from scripture, then that means that two billion people will refuse to use the system. If a positive ruling is provable from scripture, it will also have wide-ranging ramifications. Any such publication would eventually have enormous financial implications, also for myself. So, whenever I can, I keep bugging the religious scholars for a provable ruling, because as soon as it finally materializes, I may have to make all kinds of financial transactions.

Strange but true, the religious scholars are sitting on something very powerful. I am totally aware of that.

Your posts wouldn't pass muster in a liberal arts facilty — Coben

I don't really care, because I do not much respect the way in which they do things. As I have pointed out, I am much more interested in what the religious scholars are going to say. For example, is Facebook "halal"? Is that kind of platforms "halal"? If yes, why? If not, why not? There are tremendous business opportunities in these answers. We are talking about 25% of the world population who will end up reacting in a particular way. So, it is real!

At the same time, there is nothing that could ever come out of a liberal-arts department that would have any implications as far as I am concerned. Nobody will care.

ou wrote about stuff you don't know. And you painted a huge group with a single brush stroke, even though you know little about them, it seems. — Coben

I just wrote from personal experience. What I have seen this group doing, does not make sense. If you want to talk about the ontology or epistemology of science, then you need to seriously read in databases of scientific knowledge, and only then, talk about any patterns that you may have seen. I have never seen them doing that. Where are the examples from these knowledge databases to illustrate their point? So, how could I take them seriously when they talk about the subject? I don't think that anybody will.

I'll ignore you in this topic from here on out. — Coben

Up to you. By the way, saying that you will ignore someone, is not the same as ignoring someone. Saying that you will ignore someone is pretty much the opposite of ignoring someone. It is contradictory. Ignoring someone is something you do. It is not something you talk about with that person.

I am not interested or uninterested in ignoring you. I do not even really look at who posts a comment. I just read the comment, and then I may make my own comment based on that. Why would it even matter who has made the comment? A forum like this, is not a place for personal vendettas, I would think ... ;-)

Up to you. By the way, saying that you will ignore someone, is not the same as ignoring someone. Saying that you will ignore someone is pretty much the opposite of ignoring someone. It is contradictory. Ignoring someone is something you do. It is not something you talk about with that person.

I am not interested or uninterested in ignoring you. I do not even really look at who posts a comment. I just read the comment, and then I may make my own comment based on that. Why would it even matter who has made the comment? A forum like this, is not a place for personal vendettas, I would think ... ;-) — alcontali

:clap: